The University of Ottawa has at last stated this week that it is funding the defamation lawsuit of Professor Joanne St. Lewis vs. former Professor Denis Rancourt. See the Oct. 26 post at U. of O. Watch, HERE.

Therefore, it is not necessary to include my “Motion on Academic Freedom” (see my Oct. 14 e-mail, below) on the Nov. 7 Senate Agenda.

In a separate matter, please include a distinct Agenda item entitled “Treatment of Student Senators” in the “For Information” section of the Nov. 7 Senate Agenda. Please use this title in the Agenda text. This item will include, among other points, your refusal to answer my requests on procedural matters such as my Oct. 18 request for confirmation of my Oct. 14 e-mail, below.

Please confirm that you will do as I requested on October 14, below, regarding a motion that I have submitted to the Senate.

Thank you,Joseph Hickey

————————————————————————————————————————————————-

From: Joseph HickeyTo: Diane DavidsonDate: October 14, 2011Subject: Nov. 7 — Motion on Academic Freedom: University of Ottawa’s Involvement in the Civil Litigation between Joanne St. Lewis and Denis Rancourt

Dear VP Governance Davidson,

Please forward my Oct. 3 motion (“Motion on Academic Freedom: University of Ottawa’s Involvement in the Civil Litigation between Joanne St. Lewis and Denis Rancourt) to the Nov. 7 meeting of the Senate. The motion was not dealt with on Oct. 3.

Please include the motion in the “For Approval” section of the Nov. 7 meeting Agenda, where it should properly be placed.
Please include the full title as I have indicated in this e-mail (above) and in my original e-mail of Sept. 23 in which I submitted the motion to you.

I am glad the University acknowledged this. Now perhaps everyone can focus on the real issue in this lawsuit, namely, whether Mr. Rancourt defamed (and continues to defame) Professor St. Lewis in his numerous blog posts. I am not giving my opinion on this question, one way or another, but it’s unfortunate to see someone trying to create diversions and smoke-screens.If Mr. Rancourt believes he is entitled to say what he wants about anyone, in the name of freedom of expression, then let him make that argument and convince a judge that he is right. Such a precedent would be of great value. So why is he (and you) wasting so much time on these trivial matters that have no bearing on the case?